Judge Richard Posner has issued an order upholding some of Apple's patent claims against Motorola Mobility that one analysis believes will likely result in a finding of infringement on Motorola's part.

Patent expert Florian Mueller of Foss Patents reported on Saturday that the order is for a touchscreen heuristics patent ('949), one of the "killer patents" that Apple is leveraging in an attempt to get a legal "hole in one" against its competitors.

Thus far, Apple has won a handful of legal victories on minor patents, but the '949 patent has "the best prospects of singlehandedly securing victory for Apple," according to Mueller. Both Motorola and Samsung will offer their defenses against it at trials in June.

The patent in question outlines Apple's work on interpreting human touchscreen input by accounting for inherent imprecision. For instance, since users don't draw perfectly straight lines, touchscreen devices need a level of tolerance to understand the input accurately.

Judge Posner responded on Thursday to supplemental claim construction briefs related to the patent from both Apple and Motorola. Mueller interpreted the order to be "a clear win for Apple over Motorola (and Android in general)." Though he did note that jury trials come with "considerable uncertainty," he viewed Posner's conclusions as making it "realistically" unavoidable for Motorola to avoid a finding of infringement.

"Motorola…will have to come up with some really good invalidity arguments if it wants to avoid a disaster," Mueller wrote, adding that the company will at least have an opportunity to appeal any decision to the Federal Circuit.

The report went on to examine which gestures Posner had found valid. The judge sided with Apple on its methods for interpreting vertical and diagonal or horizontal and diagonal swipes. He found that the patent hadn't clearly described the difference between horizontal scrolling and swiping, while upholding a claim to tapping on the margin of a screen as a gesture to move to the next item. Posner also upheld Apple's claims for scrolling within a section of a display using additional fingers, but he did not affirm a second claim to a distinction on whether the gesture occurred within the region.

Mueller viewed Posner as having "expressed some annoyance" at one of Motorola's arguments. The handset maker had argued that an example of a 27-degree angle in Apple's patent meant that the patent was only limited to that angle. After reading the patent, Mueller himself believes that the 27-degree angle is "clearly identified" as just an example.

"I reject Motorola's argument (this is the third time they've made it and the third time I reject it) that the structure must be limited to the 27-degree angle used as an example by the specification," Posner wrote.

Apple and Motorola have been locked in a complex legal dispute over their respective intellectual property rights since 2010. Both companies have recently won small victories in the form of injunctions (1, 2) against each other in Germany. Earlier this month, the ITC cleared Motorola of allegations that it had infringed on three of Apple's patents.

Even as the lawsuits between the two companies continue, Google is making plans to finalize its $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola. The European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice have both approved the acquisition.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.

Patent expert Florian Mueller of Foss Patents reported on Saturday
Judge Posner responded on Thursday to supplemental claim construction briefs related to the patent from both Apple and Motorola. Mueller interpreted the order to be "a clear win for Apple over Motorola (and Android in general)." Though he did note that jury trials come with "considerable uncertainty," he viewed Posner's conclusions as making it "realistically" unavoidable for Motorola to avoid a finding of infringement.

Mueller also wrote "I can't see that the ideas Apple came up with here -- and those are good ideas, for sure, but sooner or later others would have come up with them anyway -- should result in a monopoly until the year 2028 if this is meant to benefit the public", Going on to say "Apple argues that "if it turns out the claims are too broadly written and run afoul of the prior art, that is an issue that may be resolved at trial or via summary judgment", which is legally accurate, but the idea of interpreting gestures, which are inherently imprecise if made by a human being, by applying a certain degree of tolerance shouldn't be patentable regardless of who was first to come up with it.That's why I (Mueller) agreed with Motorola's request to declare the patent invalid for indefiniteness.

Mueller is of course not a Judge nor even a lawyer so Judge Posner would be the expert here.

As to Mueller's comment - "Mueller also wrote "I can't see that the ideas Apple came up with here -- and those are good ideas, for sure, but sooner or later others would have come up with them anyway -- should result in a monopoly until the year 2028 if this is meant to benefit the public" - and why not? That is what the patent system is for. Whether it's for a cancer treatment medicine, or a touch screen, patents are designed to create temporary monopolies and to prevent others from copying your original ideas.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

Thanks for trolling.

How about learning a little about patent law and the requirement that companies defend their patents or lose them, then come back (tail between legs) with an informed comment for everyone.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

:sigh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FreeRange

As to Mueller's comment - "Mueller also wrote "I can't see that the ideas Apple came up with here -- and those are good ideas, for sure, but sooner or later others would have come up with them anyway -- should result in a monopoly until the year 2028 if this is meant to benefit the public" - and why not?

That's such an odd statement for Mueller to make.

I can think of a multitude of brilliant concept and inventions that would have been been made a reality at some future point in time yet we revere those that actually were first to put all the pieces together.

Do we think that Newton was just lucky for discovering gravity, of that the Wright Brothers were hacks for inventing the plane, or that Henry Ford stumbled upon the assembly line, or that Rick Hunt was just a nut who notice the vacuum could also cut hair?

Does Apple get until 2028 for these touchscreen patents? That's clearly up to the law to decide but they did invent (or buy companies that invented them thus giving them ownership) so there is an inherent time frame for that right. Now we can argue that the patent system is flawed (and it ALWAYS WILL BE!) but that right of flawed ownership is also afforded to all that create something unique and original.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Companies don't have to defend their patents or lose them. You may have have confused the idea with Trademark law.

You are right in that you don't lose the rights to a patent the way you do with a trademark, but what is the point of a patent if you aren't going to defend it? I assume you agree that patents that are being violated should be defended.

There is also a case to be made that if you choose to defend your patents after a period no inaction that you lose ground for a lack of defense.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

So, since there's a lot of legal action taking place, Apple should drop all of their lawsuits? Because, that's exactly what certain people are implying. If there are a lot of rapes taking place and your wife or girlfriend gets raped, should you not report it? If you get robbed, should you let it slide?

The simplistic thinking of some people is downright offensive and I'm glad that Apple is a company that seeks to protect it's property. I've said it before, but I'll say it again, keep up with the lawsuits Apple! Don't let thieves go unpunished. If Apple sues 100 more companies this year, I am ok with that!

Anybody who whines about lawsuits and Apple does not deserve to use Apple technology.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

Everything should just be like... free man. And like all the food and stuff could be given away, and medicine and like, there'd be no problems cuz like, we're all basically living in a big village and one person is like a tailor and another knows how to make mouse traps and then one dude can like, cook for people. It's so obvious and all the evil corporations are feeding us this crap so we can like... not see the truth that's right in front of us.

Everything should just be like... free man. And like all the food and stuff could be given away, and medicine and like, there'd be no problems cuz like, we're all basically living in a big village and one person is like a tailor and another knows how to make mouse traps and then one dude can like, cook for people. It's so obvious and all the evil corporations are feeding us this crap so we can like... not see the truth that's right in front of us.

Everything should just be like... free man. And like all the food and stuff could be given away, and medicine and like, there'd be no problems cuz like, we're all basically living in a big village and one person is like a tailor and another knows how to make mouse traps and then one dude can like, cook for people. It's so obvious and all the evil corporations are feeding us this crap so we can like... not see the truth that's right in front of us.

Mueller also wrote "I can't see that the ideas Apple came up with here -- and those are good ideas, for sure, but sooner or later others would have come up with them anyway -- should result in a monopoly until the year 2028 if this is meant to benefit the public", Going on to say "Apple argues that "if it turns out the claims are too broadly written and run afoul of the prior art, that is an issue that may be resolved at trial or via summary judgment", which is legally accurate, but the idea of interpreting gestures, which are inherently imprecise if made by a human being, by applying a certain degree of tolerance shouldn't be patentable regardless of who was first to come up with it.That's why I (Mueller) agreed with Motorola's request to declare the patent invalid for indefiniteness.

Mueller is of course not a Judge nor even a lawyer so Judge Posner would be the expert here.

I felt the same way about the 1-Click patent, even after it was amended.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with.

You're so right, it's retaliation for Motorola's infringement of Apple IP. And, yes, shame on both of them: Motorola Mobility and Google. Probably took a whole second for Apple to find Waldo, because as you know, Android looked nothing like the iPhone before the iPhone. All the real time and money is spent in the legal presentation, set up by Apple's extensive R&D and patent filings.
How much money do you suppose is worth spending on Apple's defense*, when the iPhone originates the biggest portion of its revenue and profits?

I can think of a multitude of brilliant concept and inventions that would have been been made a reality at some future point in time yet we revere those that actually were first to put all the pieces together.

Do we think that Newton was just lucky for discovering gravity, of that the Wright Brothers were hacks for inventing the plane, or that Henry Ford stumbled upon the assembly line, or that Rick Hunt was just a nut who notice the vacuum could also cut hair?

Does Apple get until 2028 for these touchscreen patents? That's clearly up to the law to decide but they did invent (or buy companies that invented them thus giving them ownership) so there is an inherent time frame for that right. Now we can argue that the patent system is flawed (and it ALWAYS WILL BE!) but that right of flawed ownership is also afforded to all that create something unique and original.

You are right in that you don't lose the rights to a patent the way you do with a trademark, but what is the point of a patent if you aren't going to defend it? I assume you agree that patents that are being violated should be defended.

There is also a case to be made that if you choose to defend your patents after a period no inaction that you lose ground for a lack of defense.

This!! Negotiations will become infinitely more complex but this is where you start.

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who berate Apple would litigate like crazy if their own inventions were copied without permission. That charity feeling of 'they should all settle this' would drain from their bodies when their hard work, time, and money invested was making profits for their competition.

I hope their shareholders crucify the board members for this totally inexcusable act of trying to purchase your way into innovation.

Not only does it look like the patent wars are going against them, but their revenues from Android are not sufficient to justify the investment. They make much more money off iOS than off Android, so they'd probably be better off if they had never bothered with Android.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

I have a sneaking suspicion that many of the people who berate Apple would litigate like crazy if their own inventions were copied without permission. That charity feeling of 'they should all settle this' would drain from their bodies when their hard work, time, and money invested was making profits for their competition.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

Actually, the legal system is valid avenue for resolving patent disputes; it's not "childish."
Your post, on the other hand is. As is your threat to "call your fathers."

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

You obviously own no AAPL stock. You obviously have no idea how much revenue and profit Apple creates off the iPhone. Things of value are worth protecting. That is not childish.

Not only does it look like the patent wars are going against them, but their revenues from Android are not sufficient to justify the investment. They make much more money off iOS than off Android, so they'd probably be better off if they had never bothered with Android.

Perhaps they should abandon Android and let the Open Source community take over. Cut bait while you can, Google!

So, since there's a lot of legal action taking place, Apple should drop all of their lawsuits? Because, that's exactly what certain people are implying. If there are a lot of rapes taking place and your wife or girlfriend gets raped, should you not report it?

Wow. That's quite likely the most tasteless analogy I've ever seen on the Internet, and that's saying something.

How about learning a little about patent law and the requirement that companies defend their patents or lose them, then come back (tail between legs) with an informed comment for everyone.

As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.

With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.

You obviously own no AAPL stock. You obviously have no idea how much revenue and profit Apple creates off the iPhone. Things of value are worth protecting. That is not childish.

I side with Apple here, but it certainly isn't because I own Apple stock. It is because Apple deserves to profit for a limited time for something it invented. Holding stock in a company should never be a reason why you agree or disagree with a company's actions.

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

Apple loses nothing.

Moto, however, is just bleeding more money when they can't afford to. Never mind that their business is a complete mess.

Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)

Oh my goodness I wonder how much money and time was spent in finding something for Apple to retaliate against Motorola with. This is getting out of hand and is both disgusting and outright childish on both parties. Shame on both of you. I hope the judge throws this out of court, it's a ridiculous law suit and there is no reason for Apple to retaliate other then pride.

Stop it you two, I'm going to call your fathers.

1. The legal action was initiated by Motorola.

2. The American judicial system is so slow that this is still Apple's original defensive case, i.e. there is nothing new here.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

As an attorney I can promise you there is no such requirement under Patent law. Companies quietly allow other companies to use patented ideas all the time. Perhaps, you are thinking of Trademark law where indeed one does have to police one's patents.

With that said, I don't see the point of inventing something, patenting it, and than not benefitting in some way from it. Unlike companies like Microsoft that have little problem licensing their patents, Apple wants to distinguish itself by design. So it doesn't want others to use its ideas.

This particular patent really is a useful one.

SpamSandwich will be in for a shock when you charge him a 1 hour consultation fee for that post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60

1. The legal action was initiated by Motorola.

2. The American judicial system is so slow that this is still Apple's original defensive case, i.e. there is nothing new here.

Yeah, but none of that paints Apple in a bad light.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)

Ah, c'mon!

There must be something loveable about us.

I mean, you keep coming back, right?

Steve Job's vision was so forward thinking that he used to park in disabled spots before he became sick.

Those posts are so ridiculous. If Apple has offered this patent for FRAND to others but then denying Moto from licensing it or wanting unfair and unreasonable compensation then every reasonable poster on this site would say Apple is in the wrong. However, so far the FRAND issues seem to prevent Apple from fairly competing because they've been so successful in winning.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Quite bizarre how this community reacts to patents: Apple patent? Apple should go all the way! Non-Apple patent? It's Frand or it's invalid or it's.... whatever. The Non-Apples should just be still and certainly not defend their efforts in inventing anything (because, anyway, they're not capable of inventing anything)

That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.

Motorola is a money grubbing extortionist.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.

That's just reality, Motorola are trying to become the ultimate patent trolls, their "reasonable" demand from Microsoft over H.264 patents amounts to $4 billion a year, Microsoft currently pays MPEG-LA $6.5 million a year if it wasn't capped it would be $60 million a year to license all the other essential patents in the pool.

Maybe Motorola shouldn't license their patents and keep their superior technology to themselves

They have the right not license any patents that they haven't already made agreements to license. If they feel they can use their tech in-house, instead of getting compensated from 3rd-parties, to better their position financially then they should pursue that.

Quote:

(I know, Non-Apples don't have superior technology).

Except for all the tech they license or buy from other others. No Apple product is built in a bubble and your foolish hyperbole isn't helping any argument you may have.

Pro tip: Hyperbole can be effective when you try to make it funny but when you state something that axiomatically wrong it just comes across as trollish.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

[...] Even as the lawsuits between the two companies continue, Google is making plans to finalize its $12.5 billion purchase of Motorola. [...]

Maybe it's not too late for Google to cancel the Motorola Mobility deal. What a lemon.
RIM might be a better value proposition at this point. Its market cap is $7.6 billion and falling.
And there wouldn't be any bidding war.

After all, Motorola Mobility publicly threatened to sue Google for patent infringement.
Google panicked, slammed a deal together in two weeks, and ended up paying a 63% premium
over MMI's fair market value at the time. Evidently two weeks wasn't enough time for due diligence.

Vital patents? I think not. The '949 patent is a 400 page behemoth, there's bound to be some original ideas in it. However, as with the "data tapping", "overscroll bounceback", "slide-to-unlock image" and "photo gallery page-turning" methods that Mueller reminded about, there will be workarounds. I for one care not one bit whether my page will scroll straight up due to heuristics, or follow precisely my fingers motion when heuristics is turned off.

Lawyers making money, that's what this bickering is in the end. Patents or not, Android is here to stay.